Re: C99? No, portability.

The things that are unsupported seem pretty esoteric as far as gdb is concerned.
And at any rate, I'm sure we can find a useful subset.
I can imagine we did the same thing when we transitioned to C89
(especially with respect to library support).
I can also imagine we're still avoiding things added in C89 (for
portability reasons), but I'm glad we transitioned.

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:26 AM, John Kearney <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well c99 may be 14 years old but it still isn't fully supported.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Doug Evans
> Sent: Donnerstag, 18. Juli 2013 00:38
> To: John Gilmore
> Cc: Mark Kettenis; Tom Tromey; gdb
> Subject: Re: C99? No, portability.
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:11 AM, John Gilmore <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > So, I'd like to propose we allow the use of C99 in gdb.  In
>>> > particular I think we ought to require a C99 preprocessor --
>>> > enabling this particular patch to go in and also allowing the use of "//" comments.
>>>
>>> Perhaps it is time to move on and start requiring a C99 compiler for GDB.
>>
>> Mark said it correctly.  This change would "require" a C99 compiler.
>> Not just "allow the use of C99 in GDB".
>>
>> I recommend that you NOT break compatability with older compilers for
>> gratuitous reasons.  For example, I still run systems based on Red Hat
>> 7.3, which use gcc-2.96.  I can still compile modern GDB's on that
>> system.  (With the few portability patches below :-).)
>
> gdb successfully moved from K&R to C89, so it's not like we haven't been through this before.
>
> C99 is 14 years old.  How many people still require C89 vs how many have long since moved on?